Jump to content

Talk:India

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Featured articleIndia is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
Main Page trophyThis article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on December 3, 2004, and on October 2, 2019.
On this day... Article milestones
DateProcessResult
September 16, 2004Featured article candidatePromoted
April 11, 2005Featured article reviewKept
May 6, 2006Featured article reviewKept
July 28, 2011Featured article reviewKept
On this day... Facts from this article were featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on August 15, 2004, August 15, 2005, August 15, 2011, and November 26, 2012.
Current status: Featured article


Reordering sentence in the lead

[edit]

Minor edit suggestion: Currently the lead reads "It is the seventh-largest country in the world by area and the most populous country.". The latter fact seems by far the more notable of the two, so you'd think "It is the most populous country in the world and the seventh-largest by area" would be a more sensible phrasing. IRN-Dumas (talk) 17:56, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I support this. The current sentence framing has stayed the same since before India surpassed China in terms of population. I think its due for a change now EarthDude (talk) 19:45, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I support this aswell. ĀDITYA 20:07, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support expressed by two editors is not consensus. Please don't change the order. Please see WP:COUNTRYLEAD Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:57, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 3 January 2025

[edit]
2409:4073:115:4FCD:0:0:BBF:48AC (talk) 18:54, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Just change the language of "Hindi" to "Hindustani". Both are the same

Not done. Edit requests should be uncontroversial and backed by RS. Rainsage (talk) 21:35, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Minor changes to discuss per MOS:OP-ED

[edit]
  1. The railway network provided critical famine relief, notably reduced the cost of moving goods...
  2. No doubt the style of these was used in larger paintings.

The lines above could be found in subsection Modern India and Visual art respectively. The words 'notably' and 'no doubt', although informative the first glance, bring in unnecessary editorialisation. In the first sentence 'noted' puts a subjective emphasisation over the second part without attributing it as an opinion. Similarly the second sentence could also be reframed to remove 'No doubt' which is an clear example of "editoring", but also ironically produces a subtle doubt. Thanks, ExclusiveEditor 🔔 Ping Me! 12:33, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"Notably," in the modern India section has the meaning of "especially," or "in particular," not "in a notable manner," or "strikingly," which perhaps could be a form of editorialization.
With "No doubt," in the Visual Art section, perhaps, I have more sympathy with your concern, but in this instance too, the expresson can be used with the meaning of "with certainty," or "with good likelihood." In a signed paper encyclopedia article, say, in Britannica, where an expert is writing and has some leeway in the use of idiomatic language—contrasted with the formal for making the article more readable for an ordinary reader—examples abound. Thus, in the Leonardo da Vinci article in Britannica art historian Ludwig Heinrich Heydenreich writes, "Moreover, he was no doubt enticed by Duke Ludovico Sforza’s brilliant court and the meaningful projects awaiting him there." I tried looking in Harle, p.367 to 371, the cited source, at achive.org, but lack the knowledge to make any judgments. In this instance, I would defer to user:Johnbod, who wrote the Visual Arts section, and who is our resident arts history expert. Perhaps, they might have something to say.
Thank you user:ExclusiveEditor for bringing this up. Not too many editors notice these things. I wouldn't however call your proposed edits "minor." This article is WP's oldest country Featured Article, now 20 years old. This gives me a chance to remember those who have brought it to where it is, in particular user:Nichalp, administrator and arbitrator, who began the drive for more featured articles on South Asia-related topics and inspired many of us, including user:RegentsPark and user:Abecedare. Also, in September 2019, in preparation for this article's second WP:TFA appearance on 2 October to mark Gandhi's 150th, it was copyedited by the late user:Twofingered Typist, the Lead Coordinator at the time of Guild of Copy Editors, and a member of the Guild of Copy Editors Hall of Fame Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:31, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
On "no doubt": it is a common thing in the art history of older periods that a whole class of objects such as wall-paintings have vanished, but smaller works such as miniatures have survived. In cases where some large as well as small works have survived (egt European Romanesque art), their basic styles are normally very similar, so the presumption that this will be the case is often made. Sometimes discoveries are made that confirm this. Some editors think that it is possible to write about the art history of the fragmentary remains from remote periods with the same precision and certainty as (some) subujects from, say, science or geography. It isn't. I don't know what you mean by "editoring", but as we are "editors", this is presumably a good thing. An element of "subtle doubt" is also ok, as no actual examples have survived. We could say "probably", "presumably" etc, but I see no need for a change. Johnbod (talk) 18:18, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Bringing the article back to FA standard

[edit]

I have just read user:SandyGeorgia's caution in Talk:India/Archive_58#WP:FARGIVEN of late November 2023. I have also noticed that nothing much has happened in its wake, for no fault of anyone but my own.

Although my heart is not in this article any more, I have had such a long history here that I feel a certain amount of responsibility for not letting it go to dogs.

I won't formally begin an FAR process just yet, but I will improve it so the FAR itself is not fraught with people pointing out the very obvious things we all know we should have done. Please bear with me. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:22, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • I have reduced the lead from 751 words to 656. I don't think it can be reduced much further, unless one wants self-satisfied descriptions in blue-linked simple sentences like other country articles, including FAs. India's ancient history alone has a longer span than the histories of many nations. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:48, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
*:@Fowler&fowler Everything which had a little positive thing about India and Hinduism, you removed all in last many edits very cleverly without any discussion. Looks like you owns the India page that how it should be presented to the world. You removed Rigveda, Spiritual teaching, ISRO mention without discussion. Itsjustme555 (talk) 14:53, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • While the length is what it is, the more it could be pared back, the more that could be said about the current country. SandyGeorgia mentioned a need throughout to shift to sub-articles, there do seem to be obvious options. We probably don't need the specific list of endangered species here for example, but it's not on the subarticle. Might put duplicating biodiversity down on my to-do list. CMD (talk) 15:57, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
*:@Chipmunkdavis Even India's involvement in G20, Brics, QUAD etc is not mentioned in lead. Lead is completely not up.to the bar as per India's importance to the world right now. Itsjustme555 (talk) 16:03, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Possibly those are examples of information on the current country, although we'd have to get those into the body first. CMD (talk) 16:08, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • :::@Chipmunkdavis Evaluation of India page lead is much much needed. Itsjustme555 (talk) 16:11, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    This is the version of the article that appeared on the Wikipedia front page on Gandhi's 150th anniversary on 2nd October 2019, after a two month discussion on the talk page which was both commented on and overseen by dozens of editors, including administrators. The list of G20, etc, passing associations of the moment, have never been a part of the lead of this page Fowler&fowler«Talk» 11:42, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Britannica, for example, makes no mention of G20, or the rest of the fluff, in its article on India, last updated a few days ago. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 11:44, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The endangered species in the Biodiversity section have been a part of the article since 2007. I doubt they can be removed. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 11:31, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I do not feel the individual species and the occasional longer explanation, for the endangered and the extinct species, significantly contributes to reader understanding of India. The broader statistics, description of human encroachment, and government initiatives provide a succinct overview. CMD (talk) 12:58, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The article section is about biodiversity, not Homo sapiens-managed biodiversity, and especially not elected government advertised biodiversity. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:14, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia Itsjustme555 (talk · contribs)! I have pared the lead down a little. user:Moxy had suggested a 400-word limit somewhere. It is 650 now. Next, I will revise the history subsections and look for higher-level descriptions of the two history paragraphs. Fowler&fowler«Talk»

Symbol infobox in government section

[edit]

I'm uncertain of the utility of this infobox. It seems to me that if a national symbol is important enough to be in this article, it should be in the primary infobox at the top, as indeed many (currency, language, national anthem, song) appropriately are. Does it make sense to have a secondary infobox, though? Vanamonde93 (talk) 17:21, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think there was consensus in a recent talk page discussion for removing the infobox altogether. The symbols are the work of the governments of the day, which have their own axes to grind; their notability is not subject-specific scholarly. The flag, anthems and other major symbols have had secondary- and tertiary source attention. But these other symbols have had little or none attention as symbols. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:58, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
PS Some, such as the Ganges river dolphin, a highly endangered blind river dolphin, could appear in Biodiversity, but its status as a national symbol should play no role in that appearance. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:05, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Endonym

[edit]

In the first line, should we include the endonyms, Bharat and Hindustan? Shubhsamant09 (talk) 16:17, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

They're not common names for the state in English, so no. Remsense ‥ 论 16:18, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 25 January 2025

[edit]

population estimate shoould be updated for 2025 in the infobox, according to un world population prospects 2024 Hasancelikbilek35 (talk) 21:42, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: No reason to update an estimate that merely extrapolates rates of change so fastidiously. Remsense ‥ 论 22:02, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Lead evaluation

[edit]

I think, last paragraph of lead should be rewritten as current value of India. It gives feeling of India in 20th century's poor state. But reality is :

It is now 5th largest economy in in nominal GDP and 3rd in PPP only behind US and China.

It is part of G20, Brics and other.

It's a Nuclear Triad country along with only USA, China and Russia.

It has a successful space program and own navigation system called Navic. Its only 4th country to landed in moon. Themasterone125 (talk) 11:08, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This things aren't mentioned in lead like other countries. Themasterone125 (talk) 11:09, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:India&oldid=1272388761"